4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Chelyabinsk.
5.  The applicant receives disability allowance following health damage in his previous work in the mining industry.
6.  On 8 September 1999 the applicant seized the Vorkuta Town Court of the Komi Republic (“the Town Court”) with a claim against the local branch of the Social Security Fund of Russia alleging incorrect calculation of his disability allowance and seeking the unpaid damages. On the same day the Town Court scheduled the first hearing for 8 September 2000.
7.  The hearing scheduled for 8 September 2000 did not take place following the respondent’s representative’s default in appearance. The court adjourned the next hearing of 20 October 2000 after granting the respondent’s motion for obtainment of certain archive documents.
8.  On 19 July 2001 the applicant’s representative motioned for adjournment of examination of the case to 16 September 2001 due to her vacation.
9.  At the hearing of 18 September 2001 the applicant’s representative specified the claims and requested that the court join the Ministry of Energy of Russia to the proceedings as a co-respondent. The request was granted by the court, and the hearing was adjourned.
10.  The hearing scheduled for 5 November 2001 did not take place due to the judge’s illness.
11.  By letter of 28 December 2001 the applicant requested that the case be examined in his absence, with participation of his representative.
12.  On 21 February 2002 the applicant’s representative renounced the claims against the Ministry of Energy.
13.  The hearing scheduled for 22 February 2002 did not take place as the parties did not show. The applicant’s representative requested that the court examine the case in her absence as she was involved in different proceedings.
14.  On 11 April 2002 the applicant again motioned for examination of the claims in his absence.
15.  The court postponed the hearing of 16 April 2002 at its own initiative to obtain the applicant’s trade union membership records.
16.  On 11 May 2002 the applicant’s representative specified the claims in writing. At this date the hearing did not take place due to the respondent’s default in appearance.
17.  On 15 May 2002 both the respondent and the applicant’s representative motioned for examination of the case in their absence. The applicant’s claims were once again specified, and the claims against the Ministry of Energy were resumed.
18.  On 16 May 2002 the court ordered an expert examination and adjourned the proceedings.
19.  On 29 October 2002 the expert examination was completed. The next hearing was scheduled for 24 December 2002.
20.  On 23 and 24 December 2002, respectively, the applicant’s representative and the respondent motioned for examination of the claims in their absence. The former once again specified the claims.
21.  On 8 January 2003 the Town Court gave a judgment awarding the applicant 621,999 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages and legal expenses, and RUB 34,350 as monthly payments with further indexation in accordance with the minimum wage. Both parties appealed.
22.  On 31 March 2003 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic acting as the appeal court remitted the case to the first instance for clarification of the judgment in the calculation part. On 22 May 2003 the trial court clarified the judgment as ordered.
23.  The appeal hearing of 30 June 2003 was adjourned to obtain the documents referred to in the judgment, which were not included in the case-file.
24.  On 17 July 2003 the appeal court again remitted the case to the first instance for correction of an arithmetical error made in the judgment. The error was corrected on 1 September 2003.
25.  On 4 December 2003 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld the judgment of 8 January 2003 on appeal.